Libertarians and Marxists, the exact same argument style, only differing in their utopia.

Differ? They offer the same utopia, cloaked in different language. Either one has people arbitrarily deciding to work together in a friendly manner for ill-defined reasons. The problem with all utopias is that they are all built around already being a utopia, essentially a pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps.

Libertarians and Marxists, the exact same argument style, only differing in their utopia.

Differ? They offer the same utopia, cloaked in different language. Either one has people arbitrarily deciding to work together in a friendly manner for ill-defined reasons. The problem with all utopias is that they are all built around already being a utopia, essentially a pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps.

The main difference is in the economic model, one being hyper-command, the other laissez-faire.

The results are roughly the same though. Although you'd have to admit that the communists at least have a method to bring about their utopia, even if it wouldn't work. Libertarians seem to think that if you just let everyone do exactly what they want, the utopia will just kind of... happen.

Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my wayI'm gonna serve it to youAnd that ain't what you want to hearBut that's what I'll do -- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

The main difference is in the economic model, one being hyper-command, the other laissez-faire.

Except that both economic models are built on the presumption that people will arbitrarily be nice to each other once they are presented with the system, despite the fact that both systems will instead present ample opportunities and motivations for people to be bastards.

The main difference is in the economic model, one being hyper-command, the other laissez-faire.

Except that both economic models are built on the presumption that people will arbitrarily be nice to each other once they are presented with the system, despite the fact that both systems will instead present ample opportunities and motivations for people to be bastards.

Yes, the two types of anarchists do resemble each other in more ways than just their arguments. However, I have found that a lot of Libertarians don't assume "nice" but rather that the net effect of "selfish" will work out to a good result.[1]

[1] There are also a fair number who accept that a stable laissez-faire economy with a weak/non-existent government trends toward plutocracy, they just assume that they are either going to be one of the plutocrats or at least up high enough to not be one of the 'serfs'.

Yes, the two types of anarchists do resemble each other in more ways than just their arguments. However, I have found that a lot of Libertarians don't assume "nice" but rather that the net effect of "selfish" will work out to a good result.[1]

I find all this observing about what Libertarians think quite amusing. There are several of us here, haven't you observed from us too?Do we say these things?

[1] There are also a fair number who accept that a stable laissez-faire economy with a weak/non-existent government trends toward plutocracy, they just assume that they are either going to be one of the plutocrats or at least up high enough to not be one of the 'serfs'.

I have a similar sceptical view of many mainstream political advocates. I think that a reason many support the traditionalist and soft-socialist parties is not because they really believe in their politics. Rather they see them as a vehicle for their own ambition.

Look at what you have written in this thread. The UK government have got their taxpayers into a huge amount of debt. The state broadcaster, the BBC, have played down this issue. You have argued here that the BBC's treatment of the news is defensible.

I'm a charitable minded sort of person. If I wasn't a charitable minded sort of person this is what I would be thinking. Firstly, the British taxpayers is getting screwed. Secondly, the BBC are complicit in trying to prevent the electorate from realizing this. Thirdly, rwpikul is defending the BBC in this. Why is he doing this? He may have something against the British perhaps, but he's arguing the point generally. Perhaps then what he wants is to make sure that in future government actions that are detrimental to the taxpayer are kept out of the public eye. Why should he want that? Perhaps because he intends to become a politician himself at some point and act in a similar manner?

I don't really think that that is your motivation, I think you have genuinely different political opinions to mine. I'm not so charitable to everyone though. Those who work closely with government have no excuse.

Yes, the two types of anarchists do resemble each other in more ways than just their arguments. However, I have found that a lot of Libertarians don't assume "nice" but rather that the net effect of "selfish" will work out to a good result.[1]

I find all this observing about what Libertarians think quite amusing. There are several of us here, haven't you observed from us too?Do we say these things?

It may come as a shock, but I've run into a lot more that just you two.

I think that Libertarian claims to be able to create a "Utopia" are unrealistic.

I do not use utopia as a synonym for paradise.

What do you use it as a synonym for then? Merriam Webster defines it as "a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions"

Replace "ideal" with "impossibly ideal" and you have it.

The key idea behind utopia is that you cannot actually have it.

The word comes from a book by Thomas More. What More intended to describe was a sort of perfect society. The word has come to mean an ideal of perfection. That was what I was describing as unrealistic. I don't really understand what you mean.

Yes, the two types of anarchists do resemble each other in more ways than just their arguments. However, I have found that a lot of Libertarians don't assume "nice" but rather that the net effect of "selfish" will work out to a good result.[1]

I find all this observing about what Libertarians think quite amusing. There are several of us here, haven't you observed from us too?Do we say these things?

It may come as a shock, but I've run into a lot more that just you two.

Well, it does come as a bit of a surprise. I've met only a couple of other people who would describe themselves as classical liberals or neoliberals. I've never met anyone who would describe their views as Libertarian, but that word isn't really used in Britain.

The word comes from a book by Thomas More. What More intended to describe was a sort of perfect society. The word has come to mean an ideal of perfection. That was what I was describing as unrealistic. I don't really understand what you mean.

It's a Greek word, and literally means "non-place", or a place that does not/cannot exist.

The word comes from a book by Thomas More. What More intended to describe was a sort of perfect society. The word has come to mean an ideal of perfection. That was what I was describing as unrealistic. I don't really understand what you mean.

It's a Greek word, and literally means "non-place", or a place that does not/cannot exist.

The word comes from a book by Thomas More. What More intended to describe was a sort of perfect society. The word has come to mean an ideal of perfection. That was what I was describing as unrealistic. I don't really understand what you mean.

It's a Greek word, and literally means "non-place", or a place that does not/cannot exist.

Didn't More create the word though? From parts?

More did construct it for his use, but it is a valid Greek word.

I use it to describe the societies desired by people of some political stripes because those societies are generally unreachable, inherently unstable, or would result in outcomes wildly different from that desired.

Also: There is a unusually high population of libertarians in both computer science and role-players, both areas I have had quite a bit of contact with. Over the years I've bumped into the full range from "ideological but practical" libertarians like SF writer Ryk E. Spoor, to literally card carrying "lets legalize everything, up to and including child prostitution"[1] capital-L members of the US Libertarian party, and even a few full-bore Objectivists, (although there you start running into Poe's Law)[2].

[1] While none would ever actually say this, the party platform has had major planks that, if implemented, would have that result.

[2] Poe's Law is where you cannot tell the difference between a satire and someone seriously espousing a set of views.